Headline: cops kill man "in broad daylight", in front of "witnesses"
1st para: residents in "shock and anger"
2nd para: "historical trauma" from "officer-involved shootings"
Later on: man was "checking parked vehicles"
Finally: he stabbed a cop. Oh.
https://t.co/ZbHvT7jZRV
Sing, Muse, of what was it there again,
That twisty-turny fella!
And it says here that, well, the gods ordained his return
after 20 years at war and sea.
My Uncle Wilbur, y'know, he was gone 20 years,
but he didn't fight, ah, monsters or anything.
He just really hated his wife.
Here's a map of the top ancestry in each county, limited to the 8 remaining countries in the World Cup.
Unsurprisingly, English dominates the map, although Norwegian leads in much of the Upper Midwest.
French, Swiss, Belgian, and Spanish also lead in a few each.
@SaladBarFan@Peter_Nimitz The fact that being from a dysfunctional society fast-tracks the immigration of such men rather than impeding them is enough to condemn an entire legal philosophy.
Here's something many people don't know about me -
Before I publicly dissected the long list of problems in the 1619 Project, I contacted the New York Times through their official channels to request a series of corrections to unambiguous factual errors in its content. The editor - Jake Silverstein - brushed me off and refused any correction - a pattern he also exhibited toward other critics from across the spectrum.
Before I publicly broke the story about Kevin Kruse's plagiarism in Reason, I contacted Princeton's academic integrity officer and alerted him to the problems I had found, giving them a chance to respond and address it internally. They ignored my email and later claimed to have lost my email after I went public.
Before I published my findings on Quinn Slobodian's habitual manipulation of source materials to alter its plain meaning through misquotation, I submitted an article to Contemporary European History (the journal where the worst examples appeared), highlighting the problems with the passages and asking for a correction through their official process. They desk-rejected it, brushed me off, and falsely claimed that Slobodian's piece had been thoroughly vetted in peer review. In fact, one of their own referees had flagged the same problems over a year earlier and recommended rejection of the article.
Before I published an expose on Nancy MacLean & Sandy Darity's similar manipulation of W.H. Hutt quotations in their article for History of Economics Review, I (along with 2 coauthors) submitted a response comment to this journal asking for a correction through its official processes. The editor gave us a complete runaround where he imposed an arbitrary length limit requiring us to cut the content, sent the trimmed version to a referee, then rejected the piece because the referee said we didn't sufficiently address the very same things we were forced by the editor to cut. When I then asked the editor to issue a simple corrigendum to the most egregious misquotation (one that transformed Hutt's explicit attack on the racism of white Afrikaners into a defense of Apartheid), he refused and tried to pass it off as a difference of "interpretation."
Before I published an expose of a leading covid masking model in the Wall Street Journal, I sent a comment to the medical journal that published it alerting them to a math error that changed their entire set of results. The journal acknowledged the error was real but refused to publish my piece on the grounds that the "next release" of the model would be updated to reflect it - even as politicians up to and including Joe Biden were trumpeting the erroneous results all over the news.
When Gabriel Zucman manipulated tax rate stats to show the wealthy paying less than the poor and tried to memory hole his own previously published numbers that undermined this claim, academia cheered him on because they liked his political narrative and gave him the Clark Medal.
When Kevin Kruse plagiarized multiple passages in his published works over the past two decades, academia circled the wagons around him, attacked the person who discovered it (i.e. me) as "politically motivated," and dismissed overwhelming evidence as "accidental copying and pasting."
When Quinn Slobodian got caught altering the text of Mises quotations to make them sound racist, academia made him co-editor of the journal where he did it and showered him with prizes.
When Nancy MacLean got caught engaging in wholesale fabrications of evidence (as well as egregious incompetence) in her book about James M. Buchanan, academia made her a finalist for the National Book Award.
When Nikole Hannah-Jones got caught denying and ghost-editing one of her most controversial claims out of the 1619 Project, academia handed her a cushy endowed professorship with full tenure despite her having nonexistent scholarly research outputs and zero teaching experience.
When Michael Bellesiles falsified historical documents to make an anti-second amendment argument as part of his history of gun ownership in America, academia gave him the Bancroft Prize and only rescinded it after the evidence became so overwhelming that they could not deny it anymore.
When Claudine Gay plagiarized multiple scholarly works over her career, academia made her president of Harvard and also tried to circle the wagons until the evidence became so overwhelming that they could not deny it anymore.
Yes, higher ed has a politicization problem and it often shows through in the exceedingly low standards of rigor in many of these fields. But it also manifests in other ways that are much more serious than a simple lack of rigor.
Bee Update: End of May
TWILIGHT OF THE BEAR QUEEN
As May comes to a close, we do another series of inspections along with some honey harvesting. The spring nectar run is winding down. Earth shaking revelations about the Bear Hive to follow🐝🧵